Live Forever

El_Presidente

Hey, I was watching T.V. last night and there was a program on about ageing. It went through the motions of telling us about how our bodies slowly break down. It seemed to draw the conclusion that free radical oxygen was responsible for much of our ageing and that the more we could reduce the amount of it in our systems the longer our lives would be and the less dramatic the signs of ageing would be on us.

They talked about the development of drugs which would lower the number of free radicals in our bodies and hence would make you age less.

So, my question is this... If a drug was released on the market tomorrow that would lower your free radical levels and make you live longer would you take it and what effects would it have on us and our planet if we all started living to (say) 150 and didn’t become "old" by today's standards until 120.

Slydice

bigger pr0n / mp3 collections???

If everyone did it, I don't think it would make much of a difference, I'd be able to go see more of the world cos I'd have more time toI suppose, Maybe even re educate myself Have a diversified life.

Shinji

I think it'd cause some pretty major social changes actually. Think about it; nowadays, by the time you're thirty, the chances are your parents are in their late sixties to mid seventies, have retired and are really getting on a bit. By the time you're in your mid thirties to early forties, they probably need to be looked after because they can't look after themselves.

If we could extend our lives in this way, you'd be raising your own children while your parents were still fit and healthy - and probably still working. Your children would be in their forties by the time their grandparents started getting particularly old.

I could see euthenasia becoming a more popular option. If you live a perfectly healthy life for 120 years, a lot of people would probably think the last 30 not worth hanging around for.

In terms of diversity of lifestyle it'd also be important. I can't see a lot of people sticking to one career for a century...!

Saruman

It would Suck!! Look at population growth now, if we all lived longer then there would be nothing to live on soon enough. Earth would be ravaged... Though coupled with some kind of population control then it might work.

Shinji

Population growth is not a problem. There are plenty of natural resources there for all of us - and that's just on this planet. We haven't even begun to consider the resources elsewhere in the solar system...

Saruman

What we need is a pill to help us breath the atmosphere on Mars... not gonna happen... anyway yeah population growth is a problem in a LOT of countries.. not Ireland and most developed countries but it is in plenty of countries like China being the most obvious and India.

Anyway aging is a natural product of being alive. Everything gets old and dies, nothing lives forever. But even if its just ectending life.. what happens if someone is dying of an incurable disease.. It could prolong that suffering.. then again in the case of degenerative diseases it may act like a cure.. but if it did not and the nature of the disease is to break down the immune system and so on.. then with the anti aging stuff you could be in a prolonged state of pain.

Since this is all hypothetical i dont care if im not making sense.. after all we may not be able to make an anti aging pill because scientists have not got a clue yet.. how many thousands of years have people been searching for the fountain of youth?

Samson

One other thing to consider:

If a wonder drug were available tomorrow, which, if taken daily for the rest of your life meant adding 50% to your time on earth, would such a drug not be fairly expensive ?
Hence, long healthy lives would become the almost exclusive domain of a small (rich) clique.

Natural selection taken to the extreme (the rich get richer and live longer, while the poor die early, thus represent a smaller problem).

ykt0di9url7bc3

If money can be made on it then people are again selling themselves to consumerism....I wonder who sponsered the research in the first place......

btw: doesnt apply to me cause I plan to live forever!

Saruman

might also SLOW down Evolution.. then again it may be the next step.. who knows..

azezil

Would i, yes i would i don't wanna grow up

Slow down evolution by giving us a few extra years?, doubt it.


But while we're on the matter of living forever, I was gonna start a new topic but since this one's here i'll just add to it

What if you could have prolonged life, but it came at a cost, say for example you had to sacrifice a young virgin every few months - in return for the sacrifice you were not only rewarded perpetual youth but health and strength also. Would you do it?

I probably would, for a while anyway ... but i'm a hearless b*stard so i want to hear other peoples views on it.

ykt0di9url7bc3

Like that whole aztec pleasing the gods, TNG episode with troy getting the life sucked out of her and getting older.......

WOULD I LIKE TO BE A VAMPIRE?

I'd be capable of it.....and probably take it if some one offered



btw; Azezil are you trying to sugar coat your churhes little mistakes..lol

azezil

Originally posted by SearrarD
btw; Azezil are you trying to sugar coat your churhes little mistakes..lol

We don't call them mistakes, We call them "learning opertunities"

Digi_Tilmitt

Originally posted by Saruman

Anyway aging is a natural product of being alive. Everything gets old and dies, nothing lives forever.

Don't some tree's have the capability to live forever? T'would be nice to live for ever.............you never know you might find a ring of power..............

Oh and a world without me will not exist so quit dreamin!

mike65

Retire at 120?
Leave school at 45?
No vote until 50?
No legal sex until 40?!
Babygrows until 10?

Its too depressing to even think about! I mean what would we do with all the time?

Nope I'll be checking out no later than three score and ten.

Mike.

SHAMAN

I know of the idea.It's called programmed death,the time by which your body should die(unless you get killed).Scientists have been amazed when found trees that had no programmed death & had the potential to be immortal!
The morales involved is that they could devolop an immortality drug, but this planet is already over-populated so it really shouldn;t be done.

Typedef

Is a substance that is connected to the aging of cells within the body. The less of this stuff you have the quicker you age. So taking melatonin supplements may actually slow the ageing of your cells.

It might also cause genetic or cellular damage, I don't remember which.

Typedef

Also with a population as large as the human population is now, it is highly unlikely that any genetic mutation could become widespread enough to contribute to human evolution. Therefore longevity will not placate evolution in the species as evolution practically doesn't exist for humans anymore. Essentially with our species as successful as it is and with such similarity between the various 'races' it is near impossible that the kind of evolution that transformed humans from homo-habilus and homo-erectus will contiue to transform homo-sapines to homo-newbreed. We humas are too proliferic and too adapted to the environmet we live in, we create that environment, thus there is no impetus for modification of ourselves.

Sure if there was a drastic reduction in the human population to levels as like the end of the last ice age then maybe a new trait from an individual or a few individuals might have a chance of having significant impact on the makeup of the human genome. I'm not a genetic engineer but I seem to have a vague impression from some source on this subject that suggested that it would be nearly impossible for a lifeform as proliferic as humans to evolve substancially.

Humans don't adapt themselves to their environment, they adapt their environment to themselves, that is our success as a species, therefore what we need we create and therefore environmental factors as they exist right now on this planet will not spur any great species wide genetic advancement.

Ergo to evolve we must redesign ourselves, I don't agree with genetic engineering as a principal, but the logic of it vis-a-vis the 'evolution' or at least significant alteration of the human genome seems pretty clear.

/Frankenstein rant to stun.

bonkey

Apparently, goldfish dont die of old age either....its not just the trees....

Originally posted by Typedef
Also with a population as large as the human population is now, it is highly unlikely that any genetic mutation could become widespread enough to contribute to human evolution. Therefore longevity will not placate evolution in the species as evolution practically doesn't exist for humans anymore.

Yeah - I saw some linkage about this...ummm....on the side of the most recent link Hobbes posted under the abortion thread in politics. Yeah....thats where it was, only I'm too lazy to dig it up.

I think the argument is flawed. Basically, the theory is that our current society no longer encourages evolution, and that as more and more of the world get "brought into the fold" of our consumerist, city-based lifestyles, that evolution will become more and more unlikely.

Of course, this assumes several major things, such as our environment not changing significantly, or our diet, our lifestyle, etc. etc. etc. One need only look at the changes in the clothing industry to realise that we are continually evolving - the clothing "fits" which were designed in the 40s (IIRC) are no longer appropriate for modern physique, despite having been very suitable only 50 years ago.

This is not just a change in body-fat, but in our actual physiques. While much of it is obviously environment-driven, the fact remains that these "traits" can become genetic over time.

In short, anyone who is thinking that our current civilisation precludes evolution, and that therefore evolution is over is making two major logic flaws - that evolution is not currently ongoing, and that our current civilisation will last.

I'm not a genetic engineer but I seem to have a vague impression from some source on this subject that suggested that it would be nearly impossible for a lifeform as proliferic as humans to evolve substancially.

I agree, but surely this is counter-intuitive. Substantial evolutionary changes require substantial quantities of time. Look at height-differences in the last 1000 years. This is perhaps the most noticeable genetic evolution of man in the last half-millenia. Thats longer than our detailed recorded history goes back, and we're still talking small changes. Can anyone honestly say that "significant" change would not (or could not) occur in the next 1000? Probably - its too short a timespan. What about the next 5000 years. Now we're into somewhat serious genetic timespans, and yet are already looking as far forward as we can backwards with any form of reliability.

If we managed to increase our lifespans, then sure, maybe the 5000 years would become 50,000 years before genetic change.

Or maybe less - maybe an increased lifespan would significantly alter our evolution-rate. It would definitely change our lifestyle, which would be the biggest factor of change on our bodies. Why would this not have an equal impact on our genetic evolution.

Humans don't adapt themselves to their environment, they adapt their environment to themselves, that is our success as a species, therefore what we need we create and therefore environmental factors as they exist right now on this planet will not spur any great species wide genetic advancement.

By this logic, humans have not evolved at all in the last millenium at least - something which is patently untrue. Unless of course, we attach some significant to the word "great", meaning that only seriously weird alterations count. Silly things like completely losing our appendix, or height-changes wouldnt be significant. Until you add them all up over a significant period of time, and discover that what you have at the end is indeed vastly different to what you started with.

Of course, I notice that you mention that this is dependant on "environmental factors as they exist right now on this planet". I hope you were smiling when you wrote this. Our environment changes more rapidly than our evolutionary mechanisms can adapt. This has always been the case. The impact man is having on the environment right now pretty much assures us of either a vast change in lifestyle, or a vast change in environment in the "near future" - the next one or two centuries. Because of this, isnt it a bit misleading to say that said environment no longer promotes evolution, when we know that the environment itself will change.

jc

mike65

Is it me or are some giving this thread more consideration than is strickly required....;)

Mike.

flyz

Originally posted by Shinji
Population growth is not a problem. There are plenty of natural resources there for all of us - and that's just on this planet. We haven't even begun to consider the resources elsewhere in the solar system...

"I'd like to share a revelation that I've had, during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet, you are a plague, and we are the cure. "

-- the agent Dude from the Matrix

Chubby

mike65: what's your problem with the topic? I for one find it quite interesting and the program el_presidente was referring to is "How to Build a Human". The series is over now but you can still read up on information from the program on http://www.bbc.co.uk/genes/.

Originally posted by Saruman Since this is all hypothetical i dont care if im not making sense.. after all we may not be able to make an anti aging pill because scientists have not got a clue yet.. how many thousands of years have people been searching for the fountain of youth?

Errr, did you not read what el_pres said in his original post? Here's a recap...

Basically the last program of that series was talking about how all living cells in the human body (and most other living orgasms) contains mitochondrias (that's the plot device they used in the Parasite Eve novel/game )which are power cells that converts oxygen into energy. It is highly efficient but produces free radicals as a by product. The free radicals are nasty things that damages the DNA of the cell etc which basically messes up our bodies ability to regenerate new cells and thus we age (a very vague and probably inaccurate retelling of what was said I am sure...go read it up if you are interested).

So what scientists have done is develope anti free radical agents they've tested on round worms (maybe rats too, can't remember) which basically doubled the lifespan of the worms so it's already been shown to actually work. I'd be interested to know about trials on animals and stuff and see how far they can go with this.

Typedef

By this logic, humans have not evolved at all in the last millenium at least - something which is patently untrue. Unless of course, we attach some significant to the word "great", meaning that only seriously weird alterations count. Silly things like completely losing our appendix, or height-changes wouldnt be significant. Until you add them all up over a significant period of time, and discover that what you have at the end is indeed vastly different to what you started with.

I'm not so sure I would assign the increased height and longevity of humans to 'genetic evolution' or rahter just better medicine and better nutrition, as you your self point out these factors may have a kind of recursive effect on the human genome, but I think one would have quite a job 'proving' that the increased height of humans was a kind of pan-species genetic development, and if it were what purpose it serves.

Of course, I notice that you mention that this is dependant on "environmental factors as they exist right now on this planet". I hope you were smiling when you wrote this. Our environment changes more rapidly than our evolutionary mechanisms can adapt. This has always been the case. The impact man is having on the environment right now pretty much assures us of either a vast change in lifestyle, or a vast change in environment in the "near future" - the next one or two centuries.

It is probably the humans species' greatest asset and greatest weakness that it may so adeptly master and change it's enivronment, yes it's true the industrial scale mastery of the environment (abilites that help humans to become the apex of this planets 'food chain') is undermining biodiversity at an alarming rate, after all with a less proliferic atrifice of the ecology that gave rise to sentient life the less the planet resembles a habitable place, but is there any real evidence to suggest that even if man became more environmentally friendly that said environmental friendliness would have any great impact on the genome, not as far as I can tell.

If significant 'natural evolution' is to take place in the human species I would subscribe to a possible reshaping of the human form over a millenia of humans from different gravities intermarrying and interbreeding. Then with a plethora of low-high gravity adapted genes intermixing throughout the species one might find significant genetic alteration.

Can anyone honestly say that "significant" change would not (or could not) occur in the next 1000? Probably - its too short a timespan. What about the next 5000 years. Now we're into somewhat serious genetic timespans, and yet are already looking as far forward as we can backwards with any form of reliability.

Hmm with a population as large and ostensiby monogomist as humans it would be very difficult to nigh impossible to make a genetic mutation diffuse enough to affect so many individuals. If genetic alterations were so easily swapped between the 'races' or individuals then by now the species would not have different pigments etc, but would represent a 'melting-pot(to use the eugenecists vernacular)' of coalesced properties. In short I would subscribe to the notion that sigificant genetic change will have to be a contrived and delibrate change enunciated by sections of the species quite delibrately to further a purpose. The most likely areas of engineering/evolution will be height, intellegence, precieved attractive qualities and gender. Don't be surprised of the male population increases over the coming centry as people start 'engineering' male progeny. In fact don't be surprised if the greatest hits of eugenics and 'white supremecy' become a motif of genetic eliteism.

/Gattaca here we come(bags on Uma Therman).

bonkey

Originally posted by Typedef
I'm not so sure I would assign the increased height and longevity of humans to 'genetic evolution' or rahter just better medicine and better nutrition, as you your self point out these factors may have a kind of recursive effect on the human genome, but I think one would have quite a job 'proving' that the increased height of humans was a kind of pan-species genetic development, and if it were what purpose it serves.[/B]

Recursive or not, as far as I know, the changes have involved genetic change. There are numerous theories as to the purpose it serves, but its mostly based around adapting to a changing lifestyle AFAIK.

Research into seperated twins has shown that there appears to be a genetic influence on our behavioural patterns, which flies in the face of commonly-held beliefs that we are purely what our environment shapes us to be. In some respects, we may also be genetically disposed towards certain behavioural patterns and so on.

Based on this, it is clear that as our environment changes, so must our gentic structure. If this is not evolution, then what is?

In fact, the very adaptability of man, which you argue as a cause for lack of genetic evolution may itself be our prime genetic catalyst - that our societal adaption fires (or is fired by) genetic adaption.

Hmm with a population as large and ostensiby monogomist as humans it would be very difficult to nigh impossible to make a genetic mutation diffuse enough to affect so many individuals.

And yet it has happened throughout our history. While our population size may have increased, our tendancy towards monogamy has not. Certain species in the animal world are monogamistic. Are we to suppose that this will limit their genetic evolution? Slow it, perhaps, but stop it?

If genetic alterations were so easily swapped between the 'races' or individuals then by now the species would not have different pigments etc, but would represent a 'melting-pot(to use the eugenecists vernacular)' of coalesced properties.

Not true. Our "species" is formed of a large number of discrete population-cells, which have limited cross-over. Where said cross-over occurs, there is such a melting-pot, but generally you are talking about a small minority integrating (and thus being absorbed) by a larger one.

Also, international travel on a large scale is an incredibly recent phenomenon. With the exception of the colonisation of the Americas, there has been no significant population-centre shifts in living memory. The individual population cells tend to stick to themselves, which has resulted in genetic evolution/mutation being limited to within small groups. It is only in the barely forseeable future that we can imagine a truly pan-global, unified population, and therefore have no firm basis for predicting species-wide genetic change other than to look at more restricted population groups at present.

It is probably the humans species' greatest asset and greatest weakness that it may so adeptly master and change it's enivronment

Absolutely, but for how long have we had this ability, and how long will we retain it? True "mastery" at forming our environment is still a long way off, so in truth, we are adapting our environment, but not mastering it - it can still throw a wobbly at us which we have no ability to control.

I would also point out that current generations look at modern society - modern empires or civilisations - and see them enduring into the future. And yet, our history is littered with individual civilisations which at their peak were every bit as dominant at current civilisations. Where are they now? They are the remit of archaeologists. No civilisation has ever wanted to decline. No empire has been built to fall, and yet fall they do. There is no historical or logical reason to believe that our current civilisation will not follow its predecessors, other than vanity and shortsightedness.

In short, we cannot predict the future, other than to believe that it will be different to today. In the case that it is different, there is no evidence to suggest that mankind will not evolve to make better use of whatever it changes to.

In short, we will evolve. We must evolve. If we do not evolve, it will be because we are no longer in existence.

jc

JustHalf

If I could increase my lifespan, I would.

There's so much to do, and yet so little time to do it in. I feel as though I'm racing around trying to do everything at once. An increased lifespan would allow me to slow down my pace and savour moments far more; and allow me to increase my wisdom beyond the measure I currently can... as I am, like most people who wish to learn, limited primarily by death.

SHAMAN

I think David Eddings said it best when he said"Immortality not all it's cracked up to be.You live for so long you dont watch your enemies die you just don't have them anymore"

Typedef

Recursive or not, as far as I know, the changes have involved genetic change. There are numerous theories as to the purpose it serves, but its mostly based around adapting to a changing lifestyle AFAIK.

I accept that in some small sense the genetic structure of the species is 'probably' in flux. What I don't subscribe to is that the 'flux' of the species is any kind of rational evolutionary step, at least in terms of being smarter, faster, fitter than competing lifeforms and individuals within the species. For example there is an iconaclism withing sections of 'Western' society that idealises men with bodies chizeled of marble and gaunt, gaunt women. The reality is that gaunt women are less likely to gestate progeny sucessfully as far as the derived wisdom goes I believe and furthermore the idealised man the 'Schwarzenneger' is in his stereotype also a dullard. So the self imposed eugenics of human society seem to be tending towards dumbed down and less proliferic as an ideal for humans in a way. I know this is a bit of a stretch, but doesn't that self imposed iconaclastic worship not placate in a sense the evolution of the self aware brain, does it not seek to rewind humans to a supposed simpiler and more desirable carnal state?

Maybe this is the start of a species wide split, where social stratification becomes more than social and begins to become a kind of type defined social structure rather like an ant colony where each strata of ant-human society is identifiable not only by their social interations but also by their physical dispostion a disposition that generation by generation becomes more of an inherited genetic trait than a socital inposition?

Research into seperated twins has shown that there appears to be a genetic influence on our behavioural patterns, which flies in the face of commonly-held beliefs that we are purely what our environment shapes

Come now, this is the age old debate of nature versus nurture. Is a human conciousness and intellect the product of it's environment, almost definately, one must only look at their parents to deduce where one derives traits x,y and z from. True enough there are prodigies who appear to come from nothing to spur them,

"I have no spur to prick the side of my ambition but vaulting ambition"

but by which criteria are said prodigies measured and prodigy status ascribed? By the very society that creates them. Still you may have a point, people are born with genetic traits that give them particular hair and eye colour so why not genes for the governance of how neural pathways are constructed or to put it another way, why not genes that dispose you to certain sorts of behaviour? Some species clearly have a highly developed instinctive mechanism so one fairly fascination conjecture would be to what extent is the self aware brain the sum of it's parts governed by instinct or id or even abase genetic function and to what extent is it a vechicle of higher thought and does an observer tell the difference? For that matter how does the client conciousness tell the difference?

In fact, the very adaptability of man, which you argue as a cause for lack of genetic evolution may itself be our prime genetic catalyst - that our societal adaption fires (or is fired by) genetic adaption.

I would subscribe to the notion that genetic engineering will be the next evolutionary step for humans. It seems wholey in our nature to modify ourselves at the genetic level, but will this new evolution be advancement or pollution? I can't answer that but, perhaps with genetically enhanced intellect humans will gain wisdom.

Where said cross-over occurs, there is such a melting-pot, but generally you are talking about a small minority integrating (and thus being absorbed) by a larger one.

My point is that humans will become more and more an androgenous, uniform species and not cells of races, in effect humans are moving towards an extremely abundant species for the size of one of our individuals, and that that wider species will not be the sort of environment where huge genetic change is likely to occur. As you your self point out, human nature essentially dictates that at some point in the future an 'armageddon' of sorts will wipe out significant numbers of humans and at this point 'evolution' or non-human non-genetically engineered evolution is the likeliest to occur.

I would also point out that current generations look at modern society - modern empires or civilisations - and see them enduring into the future. And yet, our history is littered with individual civilisations which at their peak were every bit as dominant at current civilisations. Where are they now?

Essentially what I would espouse is that in the event of relative stability over the next 300 years , assuming no third world war with use of nuclear weapons and nuclear winter that humans will re-engineer themselves Gattaca style into a kind of stratified species with not just socially defined roles but also genetically defined roles with 'roles' in society being so easily identafiable by your physique that you can be pick out in a room for example as 'intellegsntsia' or 'worker' and so on. Or I say that war be it between our own species or our species and another high technology species will lead to the utter or near utter collapse of civilisation when humans will either be eradicated or will have numbers sufficeintly small that significant species wide genome changes can occur rapidly.

/Messianic rant photon torpedoes to mantle reconsructive yeild

Irish_Ranger_IR

Might be a good idea for space exploation, give these ppl the drugs and send them out into space, c what they find......